Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/221

 186

his powers in all three departments of gov ernment, and his untimely death has never ceased to be a matter of regret. His very able dissenting opinions in Waring1 v. Clark, 5 Howard 441, and Luther v. Borden, 7 ib. i, have been justly admired; and the reports contain abundant evidence of his judicial powers.1 The careers of Justices Curtis (1851-57) and Campbell (1853-61) present some points of similarity. After varied and distinguished services at the bar of their respective States, both were appointed to the Federal bench at the early age of forty-two; both resigned from the bench within a few years, and both subsequently added materially to their fame by distinguished services at the bar of the court in which they had served in a judicial capacity. They were alike men of massive intellect, profound learning, judicial instincts and sound judgment. In Benjamin R. Curtis we have to con sider a lawyer who, all things considered, has not been surpassed, if indeed he has been equalled, by any other judge in the history of the Supreme Court. The late Justice Mil ler, who, among his successors on this bench most closely resembled him in intellect, has expressed the opinion that Curtis was "the first lawyer of America, of the past or the present time. In analytical capacity to dis cover the principles of law which were in volved in every case that came before him, and take a correct and truthful view of the facts of such a case, however complicated, and, above all, in the power of presenting these principles and facts to the court and jury, and impressing them by sound and con vincing argumentation, Judge Curtis has 1 Jones v. Van Zant, 5 Howard 215; New Jersey Steam Navigation Company т. Merchants' Bank, 6 Howard 344; The License Cases, 5 ib. 504; Planter's Bank r. Sharp, 6 ib. 301 : Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 ib. 89; Kast Hartford т. Hartford Bridge Company, ю ib. 511; Leroy?•. Beard, 8 ib. 451; United States r. Libby, I Woodbury and Minot 221; United States i: New Bed ford, ib. 401; Tufts v. Tufts, 3 ib. 456; Stillman т. White Rock Manufacturing Company, ib. 538.

never had an equal in this country. He had the capacity to see the points which were decisive of the case, and the manly courage to discard everything else. The highest tribute to his learning and skill as a lawyer and his frankness with the court that I can think of, and which I can say with strict truth, is this: that of the many causes I have heard him argue in the Supreme Court all were decided upon some ground discussed by him as material to the result. He se lected his own field of battle, and, whether he won or lost, the issue was fought out on that ground. . . . Judge Curtis was not a man of brilliant talents, though possessed of a vigorous intellect. . . . His superiority as a lawyer was mainly due to the depth of his learning in the law, his capacity for dis covering the principles involved in a case, and the training and discipline of his mind and habits. In the mere learning of the law he undoubtedly had his equals, possibly his superiors, among his contemporaries and rivals. But in the careful, skillful, unceas ing training in mental, moral discipline, such as the athlete receives at the hands of his trainer, I doubt if any one approached! him. ... If an oral argument was made, it was the perfection of system and classifica tion. Everything was considered and ad justed to its right place for delivery, and so presented as to leave no occasion for repeti tion. The substance of what should be said was thought over so often, and the force of the very words to be used in some places so well considered, that no gaps were left in the argument. ... He rarely found it necessary in an argument in the United States Supreme Court to occupy over forty minutes, and I recollect only two cases in which he spoke beyond an hour. This was the result of the perfect use of language and power of clear i presentation of his case arising out of train ing and discipline." An examination of Judge Curtis' work at ' the bar and on the bench will substantiate